Students’ perceptions of using technology in flipped classrooms environment

Shadi Esnaashari, Lesley Gardner, Michael Rehm

University of Auckland, New Zealand

{S.Esnaashari, L.Gardner, M.Rehm}@auckland.ac.nz

AbstractGiven the rising popularity of online learning systems in higher education, this study investigates how students use the online material that the lecturer provides for them and how students could use that material to self-regulate their learning. We look at learning as an active process set by learners when they set the goal for themselves and monitor and regulate their learning. In this study, the lecturer provided students with different source materials such as video lectures with the option of having access to picture to picture, tournament, quizzes, and audience participation tools. The lecturer gave students participation marks based on the amount of participation they had in their class. Questionnaires were run at the end of two undergraduate courses of students (n=130) that were exposed to flipped classroom. Self-reports written by the students were analysed to find out about the perception of students regarding the new methods of teaching that they were exposed to. The analysis of data showed that students had a very high interest in the course.

Keywords Participation, flipped classroom, self-regulated learning

1. IntroductionThe importance of active students’ engagement on academic performance and achievement of learning outcomes has been emphasized in the literature (Freeman et al. 2014; Hockings et al. 2008; Michael 2006). Although it has been shown that active learning benefits students, maintaining student engagement is particularly challenging. Jovanović et al. (2017 stated that for sustaining the student engagement there are certain important factors such as curriculum design, students’ prior experience sequence of activities, students’ background, knowledge, and motivation.

Flipped learning (FL) is a form of active learning. In this method of teaching, students need to actively participate in learning activities both before and during class sessions. In addition, they also need motivation and appropriate skills to participate. Due to their individual limitations, students employ different strategies to enable their learning. Weinstein et al. (2000 defined learning strategies as “any thoughts, behaviours, beliefs or emotions that facilitate the acquisition, understanding or later transfer of new knowledge and skills.”

Past studies have documented the benefit of flipped classrooms in terms of student satisfaction, higher course grades, and increased attendance (Forsey et al. 2013; O'Flaherty and Phillips 2015; Pierce and Fox 2012). In FL, students need to take control of their studies. They need to know how and when to use specific strategies and use available learning resource. In a flipped classroom, students need to be self-regulated learners (SRLs) to complete the preparatory activities (Lai and Hwang 2016). Most modelling of SRLs have shown that students’ choice of tools has an effect on the control and regulation of their learning.

The present study investigates students’ perceptions when participating in flipped classroom environments and the use of technology tools in their classes. We aimed to understand how students use different tools and material to take control of their learning through the self-regulated learning lens.

We base our discussion in this paper on self-regulated learning, motivation theory and observations of student feedback. There are varied definitions for self-regulated learning, the present authors have adopted the definition of self-regulated learning developed by Winne (2006). In brief, students set some action and process for their purpose of learning. This implies a level of agency in learners. Through the SRL process, learners monitor and evaluate the strategies and resources that they have chosen. They modify their strategies based on their experience upon realisation that their strategy was not effective.

Most theories of self-regulated learning which explain personal initiative in the process of learning consider motivation as having an interdependent relation with learning. Motivation of students in self-regulation is important and plays a significant role in learning as evidenced by Gardner (1995) and Credé and Phillips (2011). In this study we follow Pintrich (2000) to investigate how motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic) and cognition (e.g. self-regulation) of students as they take part in activities change and relate to their achievements (i.e. course outcomes).

Our analysis is based on self-reports that we collected through student questionnaires. Survey analysis demonstrates that students were highly positive about online teaching material. Also our findings indicate that the flipped classroom method and the tools and materials that the lecturer provided to the students assisted students in the process of learning. This study provides a promising research direction for enhancing student engagement in different classroom settings.

The following sections give an overview on background literature and the theoretical framework, study design, analysis and study findings, and suggestions for future research.2. Literature reviewThe importance of participation in classes has been emphasized in the literature. It is often argued that students need to participate in group activities in class in order to learn more (Aguiar et al. 2014; Chickering and Gamson 1987; Kober 2015; McConnell 1996; Sibley and Spiridonoff 2010; Singer and Smith 2013). The importance and effect of interaction (Chickering and Gamson 1987; Fulford and Zhang 1993; Kearsley 1995; Kumari 2001; Stubbs et al. 1976) and especially computer mediated interaction (Cheng et al. 2015; Dawson 2008) on education also have been studied. The following provides an overview of recent studies that have explored the effect of participation and the way that students use technology in their studies.

Freeman et al. (2014) examined students’ performance in two courses, one featuring traditional design and the other active learning. The study showed that students in the traditional learning design course were 1.5 times more likely to fail compared to course featuring an active learning design.

Esnaashari et al. (2016) used an audience participation tool in two classes with two different methods of teaching and then collected students’ feedback regarding the use of the tool in their classes. Their study found that active learning through using audience participation tools was more enjoyable for the students when it was used as a participatory pedagogy compared to a traditional method of teaching.

Aguilar et al. (2013) conducted a visual analysis of forums and the number of reading and writing assignments. They found that the amount of forum activity and access to other resources have positive effects on student performance.

Feng et al. (2015) studied the relationship between students’ participation in forums and academic performance. They studied both students and teaching assistants’ forum postings. Their semantic analysis showed that those who participated more in forums had better performance.

It is important that technological tools are made available for student learning (Perkins 1985; Winne 1982). Winne (1982) argues that instructional design has a better effect compare to availability of the technology tool while Perkins (1985) contends that informational technology has an effect on tool use. Perkins’ mentioned that students’ belief about the functionality of the tool, the learning task and the relation of the two have an effect on tool use and learning of the students. Not only must students believe in the functionality of the tool, they must also have confidence to be able to use the tool. The students feelings of self-efficacy belief are important. In addition, motivational conditions have also been identified as a factor for using technological tools. Even if the students understand and appreciate the functionality and usefulness of a particular tool for its intended for goal, they will refuse to use the tool if they are not motivated to do so.

Lust et al. (2013) used four indicators as students’ performance: comprehension items, application items, assignments, and students’ overall grade. Teachers use different platforms, such as Blackboard, to provide students with course content. Students, depending on their personal strategies, will elect to use different tool sets. Therefore, enriched self-regulated and motivational learning is needed. Even when students choose the same learning tool, they use the tools differently. Lust et al. (2013) ran their study in two phases and examined how students used the same tools differently; they applied instructional intervention between the two phases. Lust’s study found that all students regulated their tool use throughout the course. Among them just a minority of students used the tool aligned with the instructional design of the course. Based on students’ knowledge regarding the usefulness of the tool and instructional design they used the tool differently.

In order to analyse student learning, we apply learning theories to interpret and make sense of the learning process of students within the class considering the interactions between the students and the teacher and the context of the classroom. 2.1 Theorizing with Self-regulated learning and Motivation TheoryIn the model of self-regulated learning suggested by Pintrich (1999), there are three categories of strategies: 1) cognitive learning strategies, 2) self-regulatory strategies to control cognition, and 3) resource management strategies.

Rehearsal, elaboration, and organizational strategies have been identified as cognitive learning strategies, which are related to academic performance. This can be as simple as recalling some words, a list, or more comprehensive tasks such as comprehending a lecture or a reading. Self-regulatory strategies to control cognition can be strategies that could be used by individuals to plan, monitor, and regulate their cognition. Planning refers to those activities that, for example, students will set for their goals. These might include skim reading before the class or generating questions after reading a text. Monitoring are metacognitive activities, which check the understanding of students against their goals. For example, self-testing to check if they have understood the material that lecturers have taught in class.

Regulation strategies are actioned when the student monitors his/her progress and compares it with the goal to see if he/she needs to change any learning strategies. For example, when the students fast forward or slow the materials to listen. In resource management, students uses strategies to manage their learning through the resource. For example, students decided how much time they allocated to study, how much effort they exerted and when they chose to study.

Winne (2006) identified three axioms, which need to be addressed in any educational psychology research about learning. Axiom 1, which is about learners who construct knowledge, includes five facets. Learners use tools to operate on raw materials, to construct a product which is evaluated in a formative way or summatively with respect to socio-cultural standards. Axiom 2 states that learners are agents. They have the capability to exercise choice which is affected by internal and external conditions. External condition includes instructional design, previous learning history, and social context. In this instance within instructional design, giving participation marks will increase the participation of students. Internal conditions include motivation, achievement goal orientation, and cognitive load. In Axiom 3 there is a randomness in data but a central tendency prevails. In research in educational psychology, scores are considered as the most important variable related to learning, achievement test, attitude, and motivation. Under this assumption, mean and variance have special meanings. There are two factors that influence randomness as scores may be different from the mean due to having chance factors. If we know the factors then we can measure and control for them.

In our interpretation, self-regulated learners (SRL) is a set of actions and processes that are well thought of for learning new skills and knowledge. This implies that learners are agents and need to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the adopted strategy and modify where necessary. In different models of self-regulated learning the focus is on students’ personal initiatives and their relation to acquiring knowledge and skill. They look at motivation interdependence from the learning process.

Self-regulated learning requires more than cognitive skills. It also needs a motivational component. When students understand they are responsible for their learning and are capable of self-development, they then provide motivation for self-regulation. The continuous motivation comes from students’ monitoring of themselves. Zimmerman (1990) focused on students’ perception regarding self-efficacy to see how it affects their goal setting. Not all students are able to self-regulate their learning, therefore the role of instructor is important in guiding the process of self-regulation for students. Pintrich and De Groot (1990 examined the relationship between motivation, self-regulation, cognitive strategies used, and intrinsic values. Their findings showed that self-efficacy and intrinsic values have a close tie to self-regulated learning. Self-efficacy and intrinsic values are not enough for academic success but need to be associated with self-regulated learning.

Based on the model suggested by Pintrich and De Groot (1990), there are three components of motivation that can be linked to three components of self-regulated learning 1) an expectancy component, 2) a value component, and 3) an affective component. An expectancy component is about the students’ belief about their ability of whether they can do the task or not. A value component is about how students think about the importance and interest of the task. This component is conceptualized in different ways such as learning vs. performance goals, intrinsic v.s. extrinsic orientation, task value and intrinsic interest. All these different ways

affect students’ motivation for doing a task. While an affective component determines students’ feelings toward the task. The next section of this paper, considers the methodological issues involved in this research.

3. Methodology section 3.1 Action research For the purpose of this study we have used action research. Creswell et al. (2007) classify action research as practical and participatory. Action research is applied in nature which means it starts with a practical problem. Then it attempts to find a solution to the problem. Action research is best applied in educational and organization settings where educators, teachers and practitioners want to reflect on their own practices (Mills 2000). The goal of the study was to understand the perception of students regarding the use of technology and flipped teaching methods. This could help us to evaluate our approach. Our aim was to improve our service for the students. This is a cyclical process. We want to ask students to evaluate the teaching method. In the past five years the lecturer involved in the present study used and analysed survey questionnaires in order to achieve better student satisfaction and receive feedback which could help enhance course design.3.2 Study designParticipants are second year students enrolled in a core paper within an undergraduate property (real estate) degree at a New Zealand university. Data is available for 130 students across two cohorts of students enrolled in the same course in two continuous years. The students had no prior experience with a flipped classroom course delivery nor where previously exposed to any student response tools. The lecturer adopted a flipped classroom approach and prepared purpose-made online lectures to substitute for traditional in-class lectures in the second half (6 weeks) of the course in the first year with the flipped classroom model being applied to the entire 12-week course in the next year.

The course design centres on purpose-made online video lectures. These videos are produced using Techsmith’s Camtasia Studio software. The videos include a screen and audio capture of the lecturer making a PowerPoint presentation with use of a tablet enable sketching, circling, underlining or otherwise highlighting on-slide content during the lecture. In addition a second digital camera is used to simultaneously record a separate video of the lecturer himself. While recording his lectures, the lecturer speaks directly to this digital camera’s lens as if communicating personally to an individual student. Within Camtasia Studio, the separate video of the lecturer is synchronised with the main screen capture video and placed to one side of the canvas in a picture-in-picture format. With the two videos synchronised the lecture undergoes post-production editing within the software, with multiple ‘takes’ made during the initial recording process being edited down into a final version. Furthermore, filler words, coughs and portions of lectures that stray too far off tangent are also deleted. Like unscripted traditional, live lectures, purpose-made online lectures can also meander but can be reined in through the editing process. Each lecture video targets a typical sitcom length and tend to range between 15 and 40 minutes in duration.

Following post-production editing, the videos are uploaded to Rev.com, a third-party producer of closed captions. The caption files are imported into the Camtasia Studio project file. Another addition includes pop-up hotspot links to supplementary online content (videos, websites, online reports, etc.) which appear off to the side of the main screen capture video offering students an opportunity to explore additional online content relating to the concepts being discussed at that specific portion of the lecture. Lastly an embedded quiz, typically containing four or five questions, is added to the end of each lecture video. These quizzes are automatically graded offering instant feedback to students and consist of true/false, multiple choice and fill-in-the-blank question types.

The completed Camtasia Studio project is then rendered into a final MP4 video file with Techsmith’s Smartplayer. The resulting package of files are uploaded to the university’s video server and accessed by students through the Canvas learning management system (LMS) via iframes using simple HTML code. From the student’s perspective the lecture videos are fully integrated in the LMS. By streaming the lecture videos using Techsmith’s Smartplayer, students can conveniently toggle the closed captions on and off, do keyword searches of the captions to find particular lecture material, speed up or slow down the playback speed and pause, rewind and skip ahead. The combination of closed captions and variable playback speed allows students to customise how they personally experience the lecture and moderate the rate at which information is presented to them.

The embedded quizzes not only assist students to interact with the course material and test their knowledge but the quizzes are also central to the awarding of participation marks. The quizzes also generate an wide range of other valuable data. For instance the quiz reports provide student’s identity, based on information entered in a required form appearing at the start of each lecture video. The reports also contain quiz performance on a question-by-question level and aggregate quiz level. Arguably the richest data lies in information relating to students’ individual viewing behaviour. In summary, Techsmith’s quiz report data indicates whether the student watched the entire lecture or simply skipped ahead to the quiz in an effort to earn participation marks without actually viewing the lecture. Furthermore the quiz data includes timestamps of when the lecture was started and when the quiz was completed. This allows for the students’ choice of playback speed to be estimated and allows the lecturer to ascertain whether the student attempted to watch multiple lectures simultaneously, again in an effort to gain participation marks without genuinely viewing the required lectures.

In order to understand the perception of students regarding flipped classroom course delivery and the technology employed, the lecturer administered a survey at the very end of semester after students had been exposed to all course elements including the final examination. The lecturer used the survey questionnaire to ask students about the course’s instructional design and how students feel about their motivation and participation in activities by means of allocating marks to them. The response rate for the survey for both two courses was very high (over 85%). The survey had both Likert scale and open-ended questions. We were looking to understand how students feel about different features that the lecturers provided them with and when it is appropriate how they think that feature helped them in their process of learning. 4. AnalysisWe analysed the quantitative data through SPSS and used Leximancer to analyse the open-ended questions to understand how the themes have changed throughout years. There were 73 students who participated in the survey from the first cohort and 45 students from the second.

The lecture asked the students that which lecture delivery method would be best for their course? As it is shown in Figure 1, in both classes, students suggested online focused for their course. It is shown that the vast majority of students enjoyed the online focused methodology (75% from Class 1 and 80% from Class2).

Traditional-in class Online-focused I have not taken this course and therefore

cannot comment

Total0

40

80

Lecture delivery method

2012 2013

Figure 1: Students preferred lecturing method

The lecturer asked students whether they tend to watch the online modules alone or together with one or more classmates. Almost all the students watched the online modules alone. It may give them a time to concentration and the ability to write the notes. The lecturer ask the students that where they tended to watch the online modules. Students mostly watched from home because they wanted to watch the online module alone and have their own space in order to concentrate.

The lecturer asked at what time of day students tended to watch the online modules. The majority of students indicated that they did not have special plan or pattern for watching online modules. They mostly watched them from home and by themselves but they did not have specific preference. The lecturer also asked students to give their reflection regarding the lecture delivery methods that he used in their course. In both groups, a majority of students (54.16 % in Class 1 and 62.22 % from Class 2) indicated that the online modules either greatly or somewhat enhanced their learning.

The lecturer also asked students in regards to their time management to see which statements best reflect their behaviour during the semester. 28.76 % of Class 1 and 35.55% of Class 2 students did the online module

weekly. 52.05% of Class 1 and 46.66% of Class 2 students who had fallen behind tried to catch up prior to assignments. This showed students had good learning strategies and they either watched them weekly on the basis that it showed they had good motivation or they believed in the importance of the task on their learning, or they are motivated to get participation marks.

To explore note taking, the lecturer asked students to identify the statements that accurately reflects their experience in the course. 54.79% of students from Class 1 and 37.77% of students from Class 2 believed that they take more notes while watching online modules. 24.65% from Class 1 and 35.55% from Class 2 also believed that they take the same amount of notes in both methods of teaching delivery. The amount and quality of note taking can be considered as learning. The lecturer went through the notes and gave marks based on the quality of the notes. It is interesting that almost in both groups the students who took the equal advantages of two and those who would mostly watch the online module were equal. 64.38% of students from Class 1 believed either they mostly watched online or they would take the advantages of the two. 64.44% of students from Class 2 mentioned that they either watched the online module or took advantages of both.

The lecturer asked students that how helpful was in terms of their learning to have the picture-in-picture feature in the online modules. 76.71% of the students in Class 1 and 82.22% of students in Class 2 believed that picture in picture was either helpful or very helpful in their learning process. Students were asked about the level of convenience offered by the two lecture delivery methods trialed in their course. 46.57% of Class 1 students believed that online lecture was much more convenient and 26.02% of Class 1 believed online lectures were somewhat more convenient. The percentage for Class 2 proved to be the same. 46.66% believed it would be much more convenient to watch online and 33.33% believed it was somewhat more convenient. It is interesting that even when students think it is more convenient to watch online modules, they still wanted to have access to both online modules and in class teaching.

Students were also asked about their views was regarding the quizzes at the end of each online module. A vast majority of students in both groups (57/73 from Class 1 and 34/45 from 2) believed that quizzes at the end of each online module were helpful and they did assist their learning or were awesome, and they wished the other classes also featured such quizzes. When students believed that taking part in the quizzes helped them in their learning, the probability that they took part in the quizzes would be high. Through taking part in the quizzes, the lecturer aimed to help students in the process of evaluating and increasing self-awareness about their learning.

The lecturer asked the students to reflect on their experience regarding taking the quizzes at the end of each online module. In class 1 the number of students who tended to use Power Point to find the answers to the quizzes was more than those who put away the notes when they wanted to answer the questions. 36/73 of Class 1 students and 20/45 of students in Class 2 tended to use the material when they took part in the quizzes. However, 32/72 from Class 1 and 25/45 of Class 2 students tended to put away notes when they took part in the test. In second cohort there were no students who had not taken the quizzes. It was clear that students understood the value of taking part in quizzes and the effect of them on their process of learning. These are the strategies that students used to refer either to notes or Power Points to answer the quizzes or just put away the notes when answering the questions.

In the open-ended questions, the lecturer asked students to write in their own words what their feedback was regarding lecture delivery methods. Students provided enormous positive feedback regarding their class and the features that the lecturer provided students with, such as recorded lectures, the ability to pause and rewind, picture to picture, and closed captioning. Some of the students’ feedback has been given below.

“In short, the online module really increase my interest and attention to the course material. By the way just to let [the teacher’s name], know, my friends who are studying Civil (structural) engineering saw the online module a couple times, they actually think this course is interesting and really useful they think this course is suppose to be taught as a paper in civil (structural) engineering stage 1 too. All the best for [the teacher’s name], student”

“I found the online videos to be a refreshing and modern approach to study. I definitely benefited from being able to revisit lectures when it came to studying for an important test/exam (which is not an option in traditional lecture situations). I think all courses should offer lecture recordings to enable more flexibility and the way [the course’s name], was recorded by being split into shorter modules was ideal, student”

“I felt the online modules were very helpful, and prefer that way more. It was easy to take notes as you could pause and go back to things if you miss them or replay parts that you were confused about. The quizzes were also very useful as they back up what I had just watched in the online module and you could soon tell if you were paying full attention to the video or not. I very much liked the way Prop281 ran this year. Student”

We used leximancer to investigate patterns in the open-ended questions for the first cohort of students, as seen in Figure 2, online, traditional, lecture, learning are connected with ‘beneficial’. Followings are the view from leximancer with the name of themes and the number of hits for the first cohort of students. Leximancer is a tool for analysing text documents, providing networks of relationships within the text provided. It identifies the main concepts in the text. Our analysis shows that students believed that online lectures were beneficial and had effects on the learning of students. Students also talked about the class and how it was helpful for them. They refer to their teacher as lecturer but not with his name. For the first cohort, online material is connected with learning. Online is also connected with better. Moreover, online connected with beneficial. It is interesting that traditional is connected with helpful. Watch and questions are also connected with helpful. There is a high number of students who think online modules are better and has a direct connection with their learning.

Theme HitsOnline 104Traditional 59Lectures 48Course 27Helpful 14Better 13Quizzes 7

Figure 2: pattern in the open-ended questions for the first cohort of students

Students from the first cohort also believed that lectures and class enabled them to understand as understand is connected through word able to the lectures. Time is in the borderline between lectures and online. It can be assumed that online option will give them more flexibility in terms of their timing. In class lectures and questions were helpful. Open-ended questions replicated the same material that we found through the survey questionnaire.

Theme HitsCourse 77Online 66Question

27

Mike 26short 22

Figure 3: pattern in the open-ended questions for the second cohort of students

For the second cohort of students as it is shown in Figure 3, students talked about online lectures and how they liked it and how it helped them with their learning. They talked about time that online lecturing is good for them when they did not have enough time. They referred to their teacher by his name. It could be said that students felt friendlier with their lecturer.

For the second cohort of students data, ‘helpful’ became available in the online theme as ‘helpful’ was connected with traditional teaching for the first cohort of students. ‘like’,’ understood’, ‘learning’, and ‘online’ were connected. It showed that students liked their class and they also talked about their lecturer by calling him by his first name (i.e. Mike) in the second cohort compared to calling him lecturer in first cohort. This may be connected to the feeling of students. Also, in the second cohort ‘learning’ was connected to ‘helpful’ and ‘online module’ all in online themes. It is also connected to understand the content. Again, students talk about time. ‘Online and class’ have ‘learning and time’ in common. ‘The time’ is also connected with ‘learning and online materials’.5. DiscussionOnline courses are part of the learning experience of many students worldwide. The lecturer provided students with online records of the lectures. The relevant concept has been explained in the short videos. Each online recorded lecture is followed by questions at the end. The students needed to go through videos with multi choice questions at the end if they want to get participation marks.

In this study, we explained how different tools and resources offered by the lecturer have been used by the students in a flipped learning environment. In the flipped learning environment, the students have access to different tools in order to self-regulate their learning. Our study showed that the amount of tool use was different between the students based on students’ availability of time and their ideas regarding the usefulness of the tool. Students had different ideas regarding the usefulness of online material, quizzes, closed caption, and picture in picture functionality. That is why they used them differently. This can help us to examine self-regulated learning theory which emphasized that learners are agents and choose what to study and when to study and how they study.

When focusing on lecture delivery methods, a vast majority liked to have an online focused delivery method because of its advantages. They also said that they wanted to watch the materials online mainly from home. They preferably did it individually and did not do it in the group. They mostly watched the online material once and some watched it for a second time. They did not have any pattern for watching online materials they watch when and where was possible.

Where students time management concerned, most of the students watched online regularly per week or try to catch up before the assessment if they fell behind. This showed their behaviour towards their learning. They also mentioned that they took more notes while watching online module compared to when they were in traditional classes. When they had access to both online and traditional in class lectures they mostly watched online

modules and attended a limited number of traditional in-class lectures. This again showed the behaviour of students regarding their learning.

When examining the level of convenience, 73% of students believed that online lectures much more or somewhat was more convenient. Among 80% of students in class 2 had the same feeling regarding the level of convenience.

Concerning quizzes at the end of each online modules, a vast majority of students believed that either quizzes were awesome or they were very helpful and assisted them in their learning process. They also mentioned that when they wanted to answer the quizzes either they put aside the notes or sometimes they referred to power point slides to answer the questions.

It is interesting that even when they preferred the online focused method of teaching they preferred to have access to both traditional and online modules. We observed that students used these features differently. Even when students were given enough information regarding the usefulness of the tool, they still needed to decide for themselves whether or not they will use the tool.

Instructional design in general and how lecturer advises students to use the tools in particular had effects on the amount of tool use. In our classes, the lecturer gave marks for using the tool and participating in activities. The lecturer through the instructional design increased students’ awareness of the benefit of using the materials in their learning.

Students’ familiarity with tools was very important aspect in the tool use. When students mastered how to use the tool, they indicated that they were easy to use. Some students mentioned in their self-reports that they needed time to familiarize themselves with the features or the tools. For example, one of them said it was good that they had the option to use all materials in the second half when they already passed the first half without accessing online materials.

It was also shown that motivation of students had an effect on students’ adoption of the tool use. The lecturer believed that giving mark for participation would motivate the students to use different tools and encourage them to participate in the activities. Therefore, the lecturer allocated marks to students’ participation. In this way, the students’ motivation increased which led them to participate more in the activities. We had a very high participation rates in the activities. Participation in the activities indirectly helped students in their process of learning. For example, when students participated in the quizzes, it increased their awareness regarding their level of understanding from the materials, which has been taught by the lecturer. When students are aware of their level of understanding they can make changes to their strategies. Participating in the quizzes will help students to identify their weaknesses. Therefore, the lecturer indirectly helped students with their learning.

The lecturer believed that if students write notes through the course it will help them in their process of self-regulation. Therefore, the lecturer gave mark for note taking. The lecturer checked the quality and quantity of the notes manually which have been written by students during the in class presentation or through watching online module.

Analysis of the survey questionnaire also showed that student had a very positive feedback regarding online modules, the ability to pause and rewind, picture to picture, quizzes, and closed captioning.6. ConclusionThis study sought to understand students’ perceptions of the learning services that they has access to in their course throughout two years. The lecturer of the class provided students with access to online materials. The lecturer provided the resources to see how students took control of their learning. In between lecturer asked students to answer the quizzes so that students could evaluate their learning. This helped the student to understand their level of achievement and make changes in their strategies based on their evaluation. The lecturer gave the students' participation mark so that the students were motivated to take part in the quizzes at the end of online activities. These interventions helped the students to evaluate their learning and consequently take control of their learning to achieve the final goal which was students with self-regulated learning skills. The self-report data analysis has been conducted at the end of two courses. This showed that students really enjoyed their new methods of learning. They expressed that providing online recorded lectures, picture to picture feature, and quizzes at the end of online videos helped them in their process of learning. Students also requested that it would be great if other lecturers also could provide them with the same experience by online accessibility to the resources.

7. Future study We are continuing to collect data from each iteration of the course, and as we evolve our teaching methods, we intend to conduct a more in-depth analysis into the increased complexity of our student behaviour. However, one issue has become very apparent in our research to date, and that is that our students are indeed time poor and behave in an increasingly strategic manner rationing their activities to fit everything into space available. In the next study, we also would like to link the survey questions to the student course outcome to understand what the outcomes are for those students who think there is too much material to manage in the course. Further, we intend to find out what the scores of those students are who think the tool and the method of teaching are very interesting.

8. ReferencesAguiar, E., Ambrose, G. A. A., Chawla, N. V., Goodrich, V., and Brockman, J. 2014. "Engagement Vs

Performance: Using Electronic Portfolios to Predict First Semester Engineering Student Persistence," Journal of Learning Analytics (1:3), pp. 7-33.

Aguilar, D. A. G., Therón, R., and Peñalvo, F. J. G. 2013. "Reveal the Relationships among Students Participation and Their Outcomes on E-Learning Environments: Case Study," Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on: IEEE, pp. 443-447.

Cheng, X., Li, Y., and Zhao, Y. 2015. "Can We Solve Low Participation, Distraction, and Inefficiency? A Case Study of Distributed Collaborative Learning in Industries," System Sciences (HICSS), 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on: IEEE, pp. 354-363.

Chickering, A. W., and Gamson, Z. F. 1987. "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education," AAHE bulletin (3), p. 7.

Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Plano, V. L. C., and Morales, A. 2007. "Qualitative Research Designs Selection and Implementation," The counseling psychologist (35:2), pp. 236-264.

Dawson, S. 2008. "A Study of the Relationship between Student Social Networks and Sense of Community," Journal of Educational Technology & Society (11:3), pp. 224-238.

Esnaashari, S., Mathrani, A., and Watters, P. 2016. "Investigation of Audience Interaction Tools from the Perspective of Activity Theory," arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01366).

Feng, Y., Chen, D., Zhao, Z., Chen, H., and Xi, P. 2015. "The Impact of Students and Tas' Participation on Students' Academic Performance in Mooc," Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2015: ACM, pp. 1149-1154.

Forsey, M., Low, M., and Glance, D. 2013. "Flipping the Sociology Classroom: Towards a Practice of Online Pedagogy," Journal of Sociology (49:4), pp. 471-485.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., and Wenderoth, M. P. 2014. "Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (111:23), pp. 8410-8415.

Fulford, C. P., and Zhang, S. 1993. "Perceptions of Interaction: The Critical Predictor in Distance Education," American Journal of Distance Education (7:3), pp. 8-21.

Hockings, C., Cooke, S., Yamashita, H., McGinty, S., and Bowl, M. 2008. "Switched Off? A Study of Disengagement among Computing Students at Two Universities," Research Papers in Education (23:2), pp. 191-201.

Jovanović, J., Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Pardo, A., and Mirriahi, N. 2017. "Learning Analytics to Unveil Learning Strategies in a Flipped Classroom," The Internet and Higher Education (33), pp. 74-85.

Kearsley, G. 1995. "The Nature and Value of Interaction in Distance Learning." ACSDE Research Monograph.Kober, N. 2015. Reaching Students: What Research Says About Effective Instruction in Undergraduate Science

and Engineering. ERIC.Kumari, D. S. 2001. "Connecting Graduate Students to Virtual Guests through Asynchronous Discussions:

Analysis of an Experience," Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks: Citeseer.Lai, C.-L., and Hwang, G.-J. 2016. "A Self-Regulated Flipped Classroom Approach to Improving Students’

Learning Performance in a Mathematics Course," Computers & Education (100), pp. 126-140.Lust, G., Elen, J., and Clarebout, G. 2013. "Regulation of Tool-Use within a Blended Course: Student

Differences and Performance Effects," Computers & Education (60:1), pp. 385-395.McConnell, J. J. 1996. "Active Learning and Its Use in Computer Science," ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (28:SI), pp.

52-54.

Michael, J. 2006. "Where's the Evidence That Active Learning Works?," Advances in physiology education (30:4), pp. 159-167.

Mills, G. E. 2000. Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher. ERIC.O'Flaherty, J., and Phillips, C. 2015. "The Use of Flipped Classrooms in Higher Education: A Scoping Review,"

The Internet and Higher Education (25), pp. 85-95.Perkins, D. N. 1985. "The Fingertip Effect: How Information-Processing Technology Shapes Thinking,"

Educational Researcher (14:7), pp. 11-17.Pierce, R., and Fox, J. 2012. "Vodcasts and Active-Learning Exercises in a “Flipped Classroom” Model of a

Renal Pharmacotherapy Module," American journal of pharmaceutical education (76:10), p. 196.Pintrich, P. R. 1999. "The Role of Motivation in Promoting and Sustaining Self-Regulated Learning,"

International journal of educational research (31:6), pp. 459-470.Pintrich, P. R., and De Groot, E. V. 1990. "Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning Components of

Classroom Academic Performance," Journal of educational psychology (82:1), p. 33.Sibley, J., and Spiridonoff, S. 2010. "What Is Tbl?," Retrieved February (23), p. 2011.Singer, S., and Smith, K. A. 2013. "Discipline‐Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving

Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering," Journal of Engineering Education (102:4), pp. 468-471.

Stubbs, M., Bernstein, B., and Labor, W. 1976. Language, Schools and Classrooms. Methuen London.Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., and Dierking, D. R. 2000. "Self-Regulation Interventions with a Focus on

Learning Strategies,").Winne, P. H. 1982. "Minimizing the Black Box Problem to Enhance the Validity of Theories About

Instructional Effects," Instructional Science (11:1), pp. 13-28.Winne, P. H. 2006. "How Software Technologies Can Improve Research on Learning and Bolster School

Reform," Educational Psychologist (41:1), pp. 5-17.Zimmerman, B. J. 1990. "Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An Overview," Educational

psychologist (25:1), pp. 3-17.